14 responses

I’ve often said that people have a right to free speech, but not an obligation to listen, especially to sophistry, fallacy and canard.

A function of this notion, is that everyone can think what they want, but that their ideas aren’t necessarily worth anything beyond their own ego. Muehlenberg’s incompetence (his paranoid wish-thinking in this case aside) demonstrates this.

He’s free to blabber on and he’s entitled to his ideas, but they aren’t worth a damn thing and nobody has to take them seriously. The only thing about Muehlenberg that you can take seriously, is the cult-mind that surrounds him and the consequences it may have upon public debate.

All the same, I think Australian society has the carrying capacity for this kind of idiocy; he can blab, his fans can mimic and we can counter.

As far as I can tell Bill’s ban on contrary opinions at his site is still in effect for atheists, but what’s interesting is that in recent weeks some more liberal minded Christians have found their comments surviving Bill’s comprehensive screening process. Of course, arrogant assertions such as ‘the earth is billions of years old’ or ‘you can be a Christian and believe in evolution too’ are quickly branded as apostasy and such contributors are treated to the same unhinged rhetoric any atheist would receive.

As far as I can tell Bill’s ban on contrary opinions at his site is still in effect for atheists

In fairness, I did see an atheist commenter in the Obama thread, though I don’t visit Culture Watch often enough to know whether that is an anomaly. Said atheist was, of course, treated to an ad hominem attack at the hands of loving Christian Bill, because he made a reference to Fox News:

BTW, I wish I had cable or satellite as well (why is it you lefties seem to have all the money? You rich capitalist pigs you!).

[. . .]

So when you gonna invite me to your wealthy pad to catch up on the latest conservative offerings on Fox TV?

[. . .]

And hey, your humble pad at least has the means to watch Fox, which is more than my humble pad has.

In fairness, I did see an atheist commenter in the Obama thread, though I don’t visit Culture Watch often enough to know whether that is an anomaly.

It’s true that atheist comments do turn up on occassion, but from my own experience it seems for every comment that survives there may be two or three that don’t. It may as well be a real ban as he only permits the comments of his ideological opposites in order to strawman them (and then boast about how easy it is for him to “counter” their arguments). I’ve weened myself off commenting there (it’s an itch that’s difficult to stop scratching) but I still find it to be a great source of tard when I’m looking for something to blog about.

Props

Mr van Bigot [. . .] It's interesting the new morality of atheists. Commenting off topic is normal to humans. But atheists have such a rigid mind.
Your hypocrisy in accusing me of abuse is too breathtaking for words.
"Epic non sequitur." Your repetition is typical of the atheist misuse of Latin as being a magic language (also an RC delusion). Bless. (novparl, Five Public Opinions)

I’m bored waiting for signs of intelligence on this website. That’s justification enough to ignore it. Go back to your group hug now, and reassure yourselves that you’ve formed your views based on “reason” and not “faith”. (Alan, Five Public Opinions)

Hey, AV’s back. This is the infant who called me a nazi up above. Hi precious, welcome back. How was your kindy nap? Have you had your milk? ("Rebellion")

AV,
eloquence will not persuade me.
you may have a captive audience amongst your peers,but your words are like a clanging cymbal, a rather obnoxious noise after awhile. ("Saved Sinner", OzAtheist)

Cogitating about irrational, self-contradictory and anti-empirical intellectual dogmas such as falliblism does not interest me. Nor am I interested in the bigoted, selective applications of these nonsenses by one such as their zealous, close-minded ideologue. (Paul Robotham, A Churchless Faith)

a religious fundamentalist is by definition someone who is without doubt about their faith position and who spends a great deal of their time and energy promoting their faith by denouncing any person's contrary understandings of the universe.You meet this definition in with out any difficulty (Iain Hall, Malott's Blog)

Arthur reveals a little more of himself with each comment. Soon you’ll be confronted by the whole picture: Arthur uses everyone as a mirror for his own misplaced narcissism. ("Daniel", Old Lines From a Floating Life)